Supertypes of Compatibility
What are the supertypes of compatibility?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan and Rory Harder in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. The following supertype of Compatibility is currently accepted in Scientonomy:
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record of the Question
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | The question of Supertypes of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The term became accepted with the acceptance of the whole theory of scientific change. | Yes |
All Direct Answers
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) | Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility. | 2018 |
Accepted Direct Answers
Community | Theory | Formulation | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) | Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility. | 1 October 2021 |
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the following supertype of Compatibility is currently accepted:
Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) states: "Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility."
According to Fraser and Sarwar, "compatibility is a distinct epistemic stance that agents can take towards elements".1 They show this by arguing that it is possible to take the stance of compatibility towards a pair of elements without taking any of the other stances towards these elements. Thus, compatibility is distinct from acceptance, since two elements need not be in the same mosaic, or even accepted by any agent to be considered, in principle, compatible. For example, an epistemic agent may consider Ptolemaic astrology compatible with Aristotelian natural philosophy without accepting either Ptolemaic astrology or Aristotelian natural philosophy. Compatibility is also different from use, since a pair of theories can be considered compatible regardless of whether any of them is considered useful. For instance, one can consider quantum mechanics and evolutionary biology compatible, while finding only the former useful. Finally, compatibility is also distinct from pursuit, since an agent can consider a pair of theories compatible with or without pursuing either. An agent, for instance, may find two alternative quantum theories pursuitworthy while clearly realizing that the two are incompatible.
Related Topics
References
- ^ Fraser, Patrick and Sarwar, Ameer. (2018) A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change. Scientonomy 2, 67-82. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31278.